Making sense of Catholic rage

How did we get to this situation of “armed conflict”?


My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me. — Hos 4:6

Nature abhors a vacuum. —A Postulate of Aristotle

Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. —Eph 4:29-32

More than a month has passed since Bishop Robert Barron’s teleconference with various Catholic media outlets to discuss the perceived problem of “disturbing trends” of “radical traditionalists” and their use of the media, creating “a culture of contempt” and engaging in “tabloid style” journalism. It is highly ironic that within a week, an article appeared in the National Catholic Reporter to gloat over the supposed put-down of certain conservatives; of course, for decades Catholics in the United States have been served up “a culture of contempt” and “tabloid style” journalism – let alone encouragement of dissent and heresy – precisely from the NCR! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

It is unfortunate that Bishop Barron’s colloquium didn’t mention the same phenomena on the would-be Catholic Left (it would have given some more sense of balance). Or did Barron take a page out of Jesus’ manual of correction? By that I mean that Our Lord spends time correcting the Pharisees because their theology is sound although their approach is lopsided; He never seems to waste time challenging the Sadducees very much because their theology is off-base. In other words, conservative Catholic journalists have something to offer, and they can do better.

Some of the responses were mere ad hominem attacks on Bishop Barron, who is is orthodox and engaging, and has done some great work for the cause of Christ and His Church. The question, however, is not whether or not the messenger is perfect but whether or not the message applies. Given the way some folks responded to Barron, they proved all too many of his points. Unfortunately, many of his observations are quite accurate: The Catholic hard-Right very often is nasty, uncivil, unchristian, and even given to purveying lies (one such individual told his audience that a bishop had mandated Communion-in-the-hand during the pandemic – when his pastoral directives actually said the very opposite!). Michael Warren Davis of Crisis was one of the few who took a serious look at the Bishop’s observations and conducted an “examination of conscience,” as he called it.

I have been part of the Catholic journalism scene for decades and don’t think I can be accused of shying away from confronting problems. Nor am I or any organization I direct on the dole from the institutional Church; in fact, no Catholic media outreach (Left or Right) receives any financial assistance from the Church (except for Catholic News Service, which is an arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). I say this because not a few “conservative” respondents have asserted that the Catholic journalists who refuse to function like attack dogs do so out of fear that they will lose their support from the USCCB.

So, why have I entered the lists to discuss this topic? What do I hope to accomplish? As someone acknowledged to be theologically orthodox and with not a few battle scars for representing and defending the Church’s Tradition, I hope to make a plea that will be heard dispassionately and honestly.

Back in the early 1980s, a very fine Catholic man repeatedly approached me about writing a weekly column for his paper. I repeatedly refused by saying I was too busy. Finally, he pushed so much that I had to be brutally honest: “I work for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, whose first responsibility is to safeguard the image of the Church in the public forum. It pains me to say it but – wittingly or unwittingly – you do more harm to that image by the stories you print in a week than the New York Times does in a year.” “But the truth has to be told, Father.” “Why,” I asked, “do you have to regale your readers with a story about a liturgical abuse in Oshkosh? Will that make it go away, or will it cause greater scandal by spreading the story? Might it not even give nutty priests elsewhere some new ideas?”

That’s what St. Paul had in mind in his Epistle to the Ephesians: We need to say the good things that men need to hear.

How did we get to this situation of “armed conflict”? The clergy (especially the bishops) in the immediate decade following Vatican II essentially abdicated their divinely ordained missions to teach and govern the Church of God; even worse, not a few of them actually fomented the dissent. As a result, various lay individuals and groups stood in the breach (not unlike devout laity in other eras of the history of the Church). For the most part, these were people of intense good will, with hearty Catholic instincts, but often untrained. Because the battle for orthodoxy was so pitched, they became accustomed to conflict and even forged a spirituality of conflict.

One finds the explicitly doctrinal crisis replicated on the liturgical front. Abuses abounded, were ignored, and thus took on a life of their own. And then bishops expressed shock at hearing that people wanted to return to the Tridentine Mass. Similarly, with our Catholic schools, in all too many places, a hostile take-over occurred at the hands of wacky nuns, who did inestimable damage before they “flew the coop.” And then bishops once more were amazed that Catholic parents were getting onboard with home-schooling.

With the accession of John Paul II to the Chair of Peter, the episcopal climate in the United States began to change in serious ways as two papal nuncios in a row (Archbishop Pio Laghi and Archbishop Agustino Cacciavillan) began to re-form the hierarchy from 1980 to 1998, replacing problematic bishops with solid men who, in turn, began to reform the dioceses entrusted to their care. Beyond that, with the tag-team of Woytyla and Ratzinger, not only a new mood but a clear theological synthesis was formed, banishing to the outer precincts positions not in keeping with “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The twenty-plus years of Woytyla-Ratzinger collaboration was followed by the continuity of the seven years of the Ratzinger pontificate, so that the hierarchy of the United States which had been tottering on the verge of heresy in the 1970s had become one of the most observant in the world; two generations of priests emerged as totally faithful; new communities of women religious came to life to replace the old guard that had disappeared; and young lay leaders graduated from orthodox Catholic colleges to assume positions of leadership in the Church at every level.

Then came the earthquake on February 11, 2013, when Benedict XVI announced his intention to renounce the Petrine office—which was followed by yet another seismic event on March 13, 2013, with the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

Almost immediately, Catholics on both sides of the aisle sensed a major shift in direction. Papal comments and actions, along with those of his entourage, made clear that a serious effort was afoot to undo the ecclesial peace that had been achieved over the previous three decades. It is not necessary here to rehearse all the disturbing developments; they have been amply documented elsewhere. What has happened, however, is that the theological firestorms of the 1960s and 1970s have been reignited and many orthodox Catholics have been radicalized. Some who happily taught the Catechism of the Catholic Church, co-edited by Cardinal Ratzinger, now find fault with it and revert to the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Some who lauded the leadership and orthodoxy of Pope John Paul II (who, of course, was not perfect) now accuse him of heresy and nonfeasance in office. Priestly morale has sunk to abysmal levels, with some priests even refusing to utter the name of Francis in the Eucharistic Prayer. Sedevacantism has been revived in many quarters.

All the indicators of Catholic life have plummeted in the past seven years. As unpleasant as it is to paint such a depressing picture, that is the reality of the moment – and that is the reality in which the “Rad-Trad” media presence must be interpreted.

Permit me to spell out some of the generic observations of Bishop Barron with concrete examples.

• Fear-mongering is very prevalent. In the lead-up to the apostolic exhortation following the (pitiful) Amazon Synod, several “conservative” commentators asserted that they had seen drafts of the document and that married priests and deaconesses were being approved. Any number of individuals who had seen various drafts of the document assert, to the contrary, nothing like that was there. Yet for months on end, countless good Catholics were subjected to spiritual turmoil by these assertions.

• A hermeneutic of suspicion rears its ugly head frequently, so that even enemies of the Church are believed before the Church’s pastors. Anti-clericalism is the meat-and-potatoes of the Left; it is antithetical to what it means to be a traditional Catholic.

• When accused of being irascible, these voices proudly take the accusation as a badge of honor and remind all that St. Jerome and others had a reputation for being nasty. What they fail to realize is that Jerome was canonized in spite of his bad temper, not because of it. To be sure, there is righteous anger, however, it is also good to recall that Virgil places the perpetually angry in the dark sludge of the River Styx and Dante follows his example, so that “Those awash with anger drowned again and again, choking on their own venom.” Just because someone has committed spiritual murder, our response should not be spiritual suicide.

• Aside from the issue of unrestrained anger, there is also a pervasive humorlessness and a journalistic “scorched earth” modus operandi. We rightly expect grimness and glumness to accompany left-wing ideologues, but unbounded joy ought to characterize a true disciple of Christ – even in the midst of struggle.

• Also operative is what I call “the law of progressive polemic,” which is the process by which someone starts out with a legitimate gripe but, with the passage of time, everything and everyone involved comes under attack. Martin Luther is a good example of this “law”: He began by correctly challenging an improper practice of indulgences and ended up creating a new religion! Similarly, we can track the devolution in a number of folks, who began by pointing out genuine errors, for example, by Pope Francis; slowly but surely, they have traced his errors to Benedict XVI and John Paul II, to Vatican II, even to Pius XII. Where does it stop?

• Sometimes this “devolution” comes from the necessity of editors and blogsters to provide fresh red meat for their audiences on a regular basis, lest their audiences go elsewhere. Sensationalism and even outright lies are often the product.

• The era of Twitter and other social media has also given everyone an automatic right to pontificate on any and all issues. Thus, we find citations from popes, councils and Fathers of the Church served up – out of context or inaccurately cited or simply misunderstood, along with misspelled words (especially Latin words), bad grammar and stream of consciousness sentences. No, a Catholic doesn’t need a doctorate in theology to know his faith, however, he does need the virtue of humility to know when he’s out of his depth.

• There has been a refreshing absence of problematic statements or actions by Pope Francis over the past several months. And so, those who made a hobby of highlighting such things now resort to rehashing his panoply of errors, even some of which have been duly corrected. Speaking of “absence,” I must note that all too many “traditional” media types find it well-nigh impossible to offer anything but negativity; if they were the sole source of information for anyone, that person would have to conclude that absolutely nothing positive, good or holy is going on in the Church, which reminds one of the crazy lady who rummages through garbage cans to collect rags while she casts back silk. “The sky is falling” crowd are somewhat like a Catholic version of the “Never Trumpers” pathology; they are so obsessed with what is wrong with the Church (and often justifiably so) that they cannot move beyond those concerns. Even allowing for legitimate concern, I have to ask these Cassandras, “What do you want me to do about this bad news? What can I do about it?”

Do these characteristics apply to all Rad-Trad media types all the time, across the board? Of course not. However, some of them do apply sometime to some of them. Therefore, taking up Our Lord’s approach with the Pharisees (who were good, serious Jewish laymen) and making a bit more precise Bishop Barron’s concerns, I have offered these observations, hoping that this might lead to the same kind of examination of conscience into which Michael Davis entered. Ecclesia semper reformanda (The Church is always in need of reform), no doubt. That reform requires the energy and commitment of everyone who loves the Church and I firmly believe that the vast majority of “Rad-Trads” do indeed love the Church.

My friendly (paternal) counsel: Tune it down a bit; cool off the temperature a bit. The effects might be greater.

So, as should be clear: I am not suggesting that the Catholic media never deal with problems in the Church. Not at all. However, I am suggesting that, first of all, we subscribe to the admonition of Ignatius Loyola, to be “more ready to put a good interpretation on another’s statement than to condemn it as false.” Secondly, that when something or someone does need calling out, that it be done fairly and charitably.

Finally, we need to return to the three quotations which opened this reflection. To avoid the vacuum, priests and bishops must give appropriate and clear teaching and guidance to those committed to their care by virtue of their sacred ordination. As one of the orations of the Liturgy puts it, we need to make a plea to Our Lord “that the obedience of the flock may never fail the shepherds, nor the care of the shepherds be ever lacking to the flock.” And then, with shepherds and flocks seeking nothing other than union with our Chief Shepherd, we all will fulfill St. Paul’s holy admonition:

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Peter M.J. Stravinskas 282 Articles
Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas founded The Catholic Answer in 1987 and The Catholic Response in 2004, as well as the Priestly Society of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, a clerical association of the faithful, committed to Catholic education, liturgical renewal and the new evangelization. Father Stravinskas is also the President of the Catholic Education Foundation, an organization, which serves as a resource for heightening the Catholic identity of Catholic schools.


  1. Earlier in this piece, the statement was made that the JPII papacy with the help of Ratzinger brought a refreshing improvement in the selection of bishops in the 80’s and 90’s over that of the previous two decades.

    Really? Do we really want to itemize the list of problematic bishops over the last 25 years one by one? Why, only two days ago, the papal appointee bishop candidate for a diocese in the upper Midwest had to withdraw his name because of, yet again, another allegation. Who did the vetting on this one? What sitting bishop was advancing his cause?

    I think this piece along with BP Barron’s complaints about so-called Rad-Teads” are tantamount to blaming the dead canary for heralding the toxic environment in the coal mine. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Rome burns while Nero fiddles. Why not try to discern why certain quarters of the Church are furious and lashing out? Perhaps the lashing out is objectionable in approach but if the cognoscenti of the Church don’t comprehend the underlying reasons for the malaise, the patient’s prognosis will certainly worsen.

    By the way, where is that long-promised report on Cardinal McCarrick?

    • This is the sort of comment that should never be made. There is no thought there. There is only “I am so mad that I need to vent and I don’t care if what I say is true or not!”
      Yes, if you were paying attention at all, and if you live in reality, the papacies of JP II and Benedict brought about a LOT of positive change. The American bishops before them were uniformly liberal. That changed dramatically, and a lot of conservative bishops arrived. Face this fact. This is the reality. Do not sit in your pot of bubbling anger and simply refuse to acknowledge reality. Something tells me you are having too much fun being outraged.
      The Bishop who got accused of child abuse the other day was a Pope Francis appointee. We should be talking about why Pope Francis appointed a suspected child abuser to the episcopacy. But no, you want to blame it on JP II and Benedict.
      Barron was exactly right. Now, the traditionalists, who should be leading the recovery of the church, are infested with various nut cases like Taylor Marshall, Vigano and Schneider, all of whom are probable schismatics who want to endlessly attack the church itself and change the subject to Vatican II. Meanwhile, McCarrick gets away, no one is investigating why McCarrick got in charge anyway. In FACT, Barron called for an investigation into how in the world someone like McCarrick got elevated in the first place. The church has lots of obvious problems with homosexual clergy that basically scared off good people from coming to church. And now you want a bunch of schismatic conspiracy nuts to go on endlessly and fruitlessly about Vatican II? Are we to talk about how the freemasons supposedly magically infiltrated the church and how Bugnini was supposed to have said things he did not say? All of this stupid rad trad viciousness and conspiracy craziness is a sideshow, designed to drive hits to web sites to make their little youtube empires grow. And you talk about taking our eyes off the ball.

      • The bishop-elect who resigned the other day had a clean record; so, the vetting was not off. The accusation was only made once his appointment as a bishop was announced — a rather suspicious coincidence. Guilty because accused.

        • The point being, Father, how this might affect the faithful who have already suffered greatly. Do you have any idea just how the lives of tens of thousands of mothers and fathers were affected by having their sons molested by clergy over the years? If there ever was a group of Catholics whom we might expect to be enraged, they are it. What’s perhaps most surprising is that fathers did not band together to drag priests and bishops out into the public square to tar and feather them. As a father, I understand somewhat what it’s like to have your son abused by a cleric.

    • Bravo! I wish that CWR’s perennially featured writers like Stravinskas, Barron, and Weigel would take this to heart and finally begin to come to grips with it.

  2. I think that some of the irritating issues that traditional and orthodox Catholic website staff have with Bishop Barron are: 1. The elitism and exclusivity of those who were invited to the conference; 2. The broad stroke of the single brush used in describing the websites (“RadTrads”); 3. The lumping together of the sites into a single category (“avoid”) without giving specific reasons; 4. The failure to take into account that the staff at the websites may have issues with him, not just the other way around; 6. The refusal to grant the staff at the websites an audience when they request one and, thereby, thwarting the possibility of the two parties coming to an understanding and gaining mutual respect; 5. The off-putting statements made concerning the laity that indicate that there is a lack of desire to connect with and share in the laity’s Catholic life. (“That’s the laity’s job” – His response when laity asked him to help them intervene in the destruction of Catholic statues). Perfect example of the splinter and log parable.

    • First of all, there was no “conference”. Bishop Barron decided to have a meeting with some people. What is wrong with that? Is he required to invite everyone in the world to such a meeting? No, is everyone in the world invited to every meeting you hold? The creepy fake traditionalists just tried to exaggerate and make a big deal out of someone having a meeting. Their main thing is to make their followers feel that they are persecuted (note this is the way the leftists always work. Funny that these fake traditionalists use leftist tactics)
      Second, no one was at the meeting so they don’t know what was said, so how can you complain that people were dismissed as “Rad Trads”? Oh, because the rad trad websites told you that they were being oppressed.
      Third, you don’t have any idea what was said at the meeting, so how do you know that the outcome of the meeeting was ‘avoid”? You simply do not know. This is what you gathered from reading the fake traditionalist sites, where endless moaning about how everyone is against them is used to stir people up.
      Fourth, “the staff at the websites” have been endlessly bashing Barron, lying about what he thinks, just so they have a pinata to bash. If you notice, when the Pope has been silent for a while, they need new events to talk about, so they start bashing Barron and misrepresenting what he thinks. They have been falsely and maliciously bashing Barron and lying about him for a couple of years now. And now they present themselves as the true teachers of the faith, when they teach patently false things. So its about time Bishops corrected these jerks.
      The websites do not get to demand an audience with a bishop who is very busy, has his own diocese, has a worldwide ministry he has to run. The only reason they ask to discuss things with him is to try to boost their numbers. They want to be viewed as the “Leader of the Resistance”. Yet why should Barron talk to liars and deceivers who are constantly lying about what he thinks? They want exposure, they do not really want to debate Barron You do not get to talk to someone by sneering at him, getting your gullible followers to smear and harass and insult him on twitter. If these fake traditionalists would stop lying for a second, maybe something could be worked out. But look at Taylor Marshall. He constantly boasts about challenging Barron. But he never allows anyone who can challenge him on his show. When anyone challenges Taylor to a debate, he cuts them out of his life, he blocks them, he cuts all ties. He did it to thousands of people who can show he is lying. There are many who challenge him to debate. He ignores them all. He sits in his bubble and never lets anyone in. When Barron put up the Vatican II website to counter the lies that Marshall was telling, Marshall’s fans all asked him “When will you respond to Barron’s website on Vatican II”? He backed down and said “I don’t have time to respond every time Barron says something”. So basically he ran like a little coward, because he knew he could never debate anyone who really knew this stuff. He prefers to remain in seclusion, in his basement, like Joe Biden.
      Lastly, Barron’s statement on the laity was correct. The laity should be out there doing things in the real world. But the lazy Marshall faction wants to sit back on the internet and whine all the time. They are just a pack of wild dogs barking at every sound in the night, just because all they are willing to do is bark and demand that others do all the work. Just like a group of leftists.

      • One of the things that upsets me about some Catholic media outlets is their constant harping about hell and damnation. When my imagination gets the better of me, I envision one of them gleefully pushing someone into the pit. Don’t get me wrong, I think many Catholics barely give their eternal salvation a second thought and that needs correction, but do we have to swing from one extreme to the other – either very few people go to hell or very few people go to heaven. I grew up in a pre Vatican 2 environment where the emphasis, unfortunately, left me with an almost constant fear of displeasing God rather than loving him. When I observe this “fear based Catholicism” touted by, for want of a better word “Rad Trads” I find it disturbing.

  3. Fr. Stravinskas –

    The essay in paragraphs 10-13 paint a picture of a radically unstable Church drifting away from The Faith by a negligent, and even heretical hierarchy and establishment, interrupted by “three decades of ecclesial peace” beginning in 1978, ending in the “seismic event” of the election of the Pontiff Bergoglio in 2013.

    I know very well that there are beautifully holy priests that were raised up in the period you have lauded. I am sure that there are a good many so, and I and my family owes the faith we stand on to the ministry of such holy shepherds who have so beautifully imitated Our Lord.

    But as Our Lord has counseled us, the Church is sown with both wheat and tares, and the tares are sown by “the enemies” of Our Lord.

    In light of the above counsel from Our Lord, affirmed by ample evidence any practicing Catholic can see, your historical summary that the (a) the US hierarchy was transformed from near heresy to “one of the most observant in the world;” and (b) “two generations of priests emerged as totally faithful” (etc) is a narrative that might win applause at the local optimist society, but seems a good deal detached from reality. As to the US hierarchy, for example, we need only remind ourselves that the majority of these US Bishops from this “golden cohort” were quite pleased, in 2004, to have then-Cardinal McCarrick publicly lie to them about the Canon 915 memorandum, and withhold the memo for them, and pretend that Cardinal Ratzinger had not counseled the US Bishops to uphold Canon 915, and withhold Holy Communion in critical cases, including withholding the sacrament from “Catholic” politicians who “obstinately” supported abortion.

    Candor must admit that there are lots and lots of tares in the Church, and the tares are being sown by the Church establishment itself (Bishops and self-claimed “Catholic” universities etc). Hence, Bishop Barron, who presents himself with an “orthodox” appeal, transmits his appeal to the orthodox from his own diocese of Los Angeles, which leverages its Religious Education Conference (REC) to promote LGBT ideology among the young Catholics of LA. I might reasonably conclude that since Bishop Barron NEVER speaks against this, he either approves of quietly promoting LGBT ideology, or is just pretending it’s not happening and neglects the young people of LA, throwing them to the wolves. What I cannot reasonably conclude is that he is acting like a good shepherd.

    Which returns us to what you have called our “seismic” Pontiff Francis, who we would do well to admit, planned and then publicly staged and presided over idolatry in Rome in October 2019 (after having plowed the ground by joining the Italian Bishops Conference in publishing its idolatrous prayer to Pachamama in April 2019.

    As St. Paul indicated, sexual immorality often goes hand-in-hand with idolatry, and our “seismic” papacy is now busying itself by proving St. Paul correct.

    No practicing Catholic observing the ongoing shipwreck need worry himself about having joined “the hermeneutic of suspicion.” Nor do we have to “cop a plea” that we cryptically worship “every word that comes from the mouth” of John Henry Weston of Life Site News.

    “Ex-Cardinal McCarrick,” the self-istyled “moderate” of the recent golden age” is an enemy of The Church, of my children, and of the Gospel. A good Pontiff might publicly tell him, so that the faithful could hear, that he must publicly repent of his crimes, and be excommunicated unless and until he does do. But this unrepentant criminal is in full communion with The Church, and indeed protected in silence, until he dies. And as McCarrick continues his death march, our polluted Church hierarchy marches in communion with him, because the code of silence trumps the Gospel, in this, our neglected and polluted Church.

    • All good points. But a bit off topic. All you have done is highlight some of the very real problems we should be talking about. And I agree with you that Barron should be criticized for his participation in the stupid REC. But remember Gomez is the leader of that thing, not Barron. Gomez hosts it and allows it to happen. Barron is just his auxiliary. So we should focus on Gomez.
      But your points just highlight the fact that all this crap by the extremist SSPX loving, anti Vatican II traditionalists trying to start fights over Vatican II is actually helping people like Gomez and McCarrick to keep degrading the church. While we are endlessly considering their stupid conspiracy theories about freemasons, Bugnini, etc, we are not able to address the real issues.
      If I understand him correctly, Stravinskas is calling us to stop the nonsense fighting over nothing, and focus on the real issues.

      • at least you are consistent. Just because some of us are traditionalist doesn’t mean we are nut jobs. Just because we question the actions of so many of the bishops include Bishop Barron doesn’t mean we are wrong. I sit in my pew at a Latin Mass and see a church full of families and young people in love with the Lord. Maybe rejecting us because we don’t hang on every word of the good bishop doesn’t mean we aren’t intelligent thoughtful people.

      • Samton –

        I am surely a bit off from your preferred topic.

        Since you may be implying you personally are NOT outraged or enraged or however one might label one’s grave concerns, your concerns are perhaps for things of “a different weight” than those that may be of concern to me, and others.

      • Thank you, Chris, for taking the time to explicate in detail what should be obvious to all Catholics but sadly is not.

      • You regret that I have failed your preference for a different topic because I am instead “highlighting some of the very real problems we should be talking about.”

        I’ll take the second part of your opening as a complement, and simply note that “talking about things that should be talked about” is often considered by readers far and wide to be a sign of “being on topic.”

        But perhaps there is some secret or “ineffable” topic I fail to address…

    • “I might reasonably conclude that since Bishop Barron NEVER speaks against this, he either approves of quietly promoting LGBT ideology, or is just pretending it’s not happening and neglects the young people of LA, throwing them to the wolves.”

      Not only does he not say anything about it, but he continues to participate at REC.

  4. You wrote: “Bishop Barron, who is is orthodox and engaging, and has done some great work for the cause of Christ and His Church.”

    I think that has to be the understatement of the year. “…some great work for the cause of Christ and His Church”. He’s done incalculable good, and he shows no sign of slowing down.

  5. There is good news and bad news here. The internet has opened everything up. The false teachers who are now popular on youtube will soon be shown to be totally false. The internet allowed them to spring up, and it will allow them to be defeated very quickly. Many people are searching for answers. That is the good thing. The bad teachers like Taylor Marshall and Vigano were perhaps first to get to them. But good teaching drives out bad. People are learning that Marshall and similar loudmouths on the internet are unreliable. They will continue to seek the truth, and eventually will start learning their faith. Once these fake schismatic traditionalists are booted out, then real traditionalists (who will be in full communion with the church) will be able to get traction and revive the church. But first, the fake traditionalists will have to be shown to be the con men they are.

    • Although John S. Mill made a case for truth winning out in an open contest with evil, there has been considerable evidence to the contrary in the 20th century. That’s my understanding of what Hannah Arendt was saying about the origins of totalitarianism. Propaganda promoted by mass media beats out truth.

      And Roger Ailes’s whole strategy with Fox News is that “the loudest voice in the room wins.” That’s why the Sean Hannity, T Carlson and L. Ingraham are on prime time, spewing out their disinformation (as the Fox legal team had to admit in the recent lawsuit against Carlson), and that’s why they get the ratings.

    • True enough. However I think you’ve hit on a reason for the rage…the conversations that needed to happen honestly and with true heart didn’t happen in far too many instances. Laypeople are shut down, shut out, & shut up….far too frequently. And there is a real temptation for intellectual types, administrator types, HR types to be extremely dismissive of real problems until there is, at last, confrontation with built up resentments and rage.

    • Thank you! Years ago when Father Stravinskas was a dedicated Priest at Bishop Kelly, I audited his Scripture Class — I only wished that my children at the time could have had learned from his theology. I have also been following Bishop Baron daily, and his REFLECTION on the Gospel. I do find his reflections a means of strength in coping with the struggles of the moment. I have also followed some of the writings of Taylor Marshal, nd were I younger, would follow more closely — Me thinks he has much to offer our younger generation. Having studied Nursing in the Chicago area, and having followed the most Holy Cardinal George, who was mentor to Bishop Baron, I do believe that we have a CONTINUITY of Faith. aS OUR BELOVED pOPE JOHN pAUL TOLD US — dO nOT bE aFRAID, AND hE TELLS US THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A CULTURE OF DEATH, AND THE gREAT fRANCISCANS ARE DAILY GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRAY WITH THEM. hAVING BEEN A NOVICE IN A mARION ORDER FOR 2 YEARS, AT 86 YEARS OLD, AND HAVING DELIVERED BABIES IN THE MILITARY FOR 2 YEARS IN THE LATE 50’S, MY LITMUS TEST IN TODAY’S WORLD IS — pRO-lIFE, AND i BELIEVE THAT UNTIL WE ALL STAND united, AND CLOSE THE ABORTION INDUSTRY, WE WILL NOT HAVE — peace. wE NEED TO PRAY FOR THE eNEMY, FOR sURE. OUR IMMEDIATE TASK IS TO CLOSE THE EVIL ABORTION CENTERS. pOPE fRANCIS IS MARION THROUGH AND THROUGH — THE PRESS IS MAKING ALL CHRISTIANS LOOK LIKE THE EVIL ONES — TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN — WAS SO PROMISING TO READ ABOUT THE PRIEST FROM LACROSSE GIVING THE HOLILY ON LIFE — UNAFRAID OF THE CONSEQUENCE — SO SHOULD WE ALL FOLLOW IN HIS FOOTSTEPS — AD JESUM PER MARIA!! TOTUS TUUS.

  6. When I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, while I admit I was young and not aware of many things, the Catholic Church was the same from one church to another. The teaching was similar across Catholic Churches, There was respect for the Eucharist, the rosary was said, there was 40 hour devotions. The Church in effect had a common culture. Whether VII changed things or was it just the post WW2 generation and prosperity, or a combination that radically disrupted the Church is probably a good debate.
    But now anyone who is serious Catholic, whether tradionalist or not, has got to be concerned. The rapid descent of the Church with no real end in site is really mind boggling.
    Anyone paying attention, has to wonder what is Pope Francis up to. Is he just not really up to the job and pulled in many directions or does he want to radically change the Church as outlined by the German Bishops. By the way, what are those German Bishops up to. Why would the Church be influenced by any European Bishop where Church attendance is miserable to begin with. Then there is the question why did Benedict XVI resign. If you follow the logic, he was in effect selected by the Holy Spirit, so it is not something one can just get up one day and quit. As a man of prayer, I just cannot understand why he in effect gave up.
    So over that last 20 years or so as I listened to really bad sermons by deacons and wonder what are they up to. Listened to a sermon by a liberal priest that included a mocking joke about JP2 around JP2 passing and wonder what was that about. Then there is fact that most priest will not confront the terrible truth on abortion in sermons, like it is not happening. Then just to end my brief depressed list of what has gone south are the newer Churches that have the sacredness of a basetball court and finally wonder why mass is said in my area in Spanish, Polish but there is no Latin Tradional Mass.
    So now I am not eally enraged, I am more or less afraid. What is going to happen next, will God fix this somehow?

    • Yes. “The gates of hell shall not prevail.”
      This is what the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart really means, for the Church and for the world.

  7. Talk about rage! Wow! And who mentioned anything about Vatican II? Not I. My only point is that there is much amiss in the Church and it seems a better use of our time to understand why so many of the faithful are angry with the Church.

  8. “More than a month has passed since Bishop Robert Barron’s teleconference with various Catholic media outlets to discuss the perceived problem of “disturbing trends” of “radical traditionalists” and their use of the media, creating “a culture of contempt” and engaging in “tabloid style” journalism.”

    First, while I have attended consistently during various periods the extraordinary form, that is not my practice now, nor would I ever label myself a traditionalist per se, though some might given my being vocal when it comes to Pope Francis. I also value much of what Bishop Barron does and have even been the facilitator for some of his series’ in my small group.

    That said, I have a few points I’d like to make. I’m a believer that once you start treating a group or category of people like they are nut jobs to be marginalized, they start acting that way. I don’t think Barron does that, but he, like George Wiegel, does unnecessary throw some barbs here and there, as if to say, I’m not one of them. Instead of demonizing, I think the hierarchy needs to acknowledge their responsibility in creating a lot of the problems and divisions that occurred after the council. Btw, that doesn’t just apply to so-called rad-trade; more broadly, they need to acknowledge and come to terms with the corruption in the seminaries, the teaching of error, and the utter hell that many orthodox priests had to go through “back in the day.” Barron is a bishop; as such, he should be part of this healing. That includes behaving toward trads as if you want them around.

    Second, prior to this latest incident, Barron seemed to have some sort of grading system for Catholic media, not coincidentally after his ad limina encounter with Francis. This is not only tone deaf, it’s utterly insane. There is much some of these outlets do that I don’t approve of, but often they are the people who push broader reporting of corruption and sexual abuse, even if it can be of the muckraking variety. You know, actual journalism; the kind many establishment outlets like Crux seem to have forgotten. Seriously, that’s the problem in the church today? Beyond that, it just boggles the mind how in any state of affairs he would hope to regulate Catholic content on the internet, especially given the divisions in the church (going all the way to and even being fomented at the top) that responsible people acknowledge exists. It’s as if Catholic clergy can’t stop being control freaks enough to get out of the way and let the wheat and the chaff coexist as it always has.

    I’ll end with a point of agreement. I’m deeply unimpressed with much of Catholic content these days, on blogs as well as social media. While myriad channels are reaching outward and focusing on helping people solve problems, be it mental, spiritual, or physical, we look inward and devour one another. Compare sometime the self-help content on YouTube (some of it problematic, but much of it helpful) with the various Catholic channels. We are *losing* in this area. People need to chill and fight the big picture issues. But doesn’t this also play into my broader point above–which is that the hierarchy has stoked many of these divisions over the years and needs to take responsibility for what has happened instead of focusing so much on the boogeyman traditionalists. I’m not going to write much more in this post, but lately I’ve wondered whether some of the ideological divisions have gotten so nasty and dire not just because these divisions exist, but because the hierarchy is full of people that have no practical skills in how to manage problems, difficulty, or people in general. Ask yourself: should a man who upon being named bishop of a diocese chains shut the doors of a church on the Easter Triduum because it says the Latin Mass ever be a bishop? Is that a spiritual father? Or should we all legitimately speak up and say this is a petty tyrant that has no business running the local K of C? I’m deadly serious. Are we so certain that his status is so exalted that we just need to rationalize away crappy behavior? I think not. That’s not the dynamic of a loving family, but a dysfunctional, toxic one.


    • Excellent comment, Don. I agree with every point you make.

      Especially about our leaders‘ inept handling of what most of us would view as personnel issues.

      Understanding theology is not the same thing as loving others.

  9. I usually find Father Stravinskas refreshing, and he didn’t disappoint me this time around. In Bishop Barron’s defense, I have to say that being a well-known auxiliary bishop is an awkward tightrope to walk. Theoretically, he has the full teaching authority of the bishops, but if he offends his ordinary, he could still find himself with problems. In the end, no less than Bishop Sheen wound up exiled to Rochester, and things may not be much different these days. Bishop Schneider gets away with being outspoken because he appears to have his ordinary behind him; I don’t know what the relationship between Archbishop Gomez and Bishop Barron is. The idea of Bishop Barron being sent to Salina, Kansas (as a hypothetical example– not trying to start a rumor) is hardly farfetched in any case. I am probably not the first to wonder if the idea of an auxiliary bishop is something that should be allowed to fall into disuse. If a diocese is too big for one bishop to serve, it should probably be split.

    I’m inclined to moderate Father’s moderation just a bit; the general direction of St. John Paul II’s episcopal appointments was good, but unfortunately the bad ones (such as McCarrick) were bad and numerous enough to cloud the picture significantly. The best thing that probably happened under John Paul II and Benedict was that the seminaries were cleaned up. Again, there are still exceptions, but we’re getting to a point where bishops will have to be appointed from the generally more orthodox priests who are still under 40. I know of at least half a dozen priests under 40 in my diocese who can offer the extraordinary form of Mass; I could not have dreamt of such a thing twenty years ago.

    Finally, I’ll underscore what I consider to be the “money quote” from this article: “What they fail to realize is that Jerome was canonized in spite of his bad temper, not because of it.” We have to avoid the temptation to raise our saints to the level of impeccability as a way of justifying our sins. We all need to make sure we get our facts straight and try to focus on ideas rather than personalities, and we have to try not to play favorites. If our friend is wrong, we have to call him on it, and if our enemy is right, we have to concede that too.

  10. If I am any indication, I think it is certainly fair to accuse Traditionalists of a lack of charity and tendency towards hostility.

    The question that this article, Bishop Barron, and others from the Communio school seem to dismiss remains: are Traditionalists right?

    Is Communio theology orthodox or an intellectually dishonest (however well intentioned) compromise? Is the Novus Ordo an equal while different expression of the Faith, or a great privative evil?

    • I am presuming that the question asked is a theoretical one, and not one held by Alex. The question indicates a rather major lack of understanding the liturgy of the Mass, and behind it one might almost imply that Christ established the EF.

      Several years ago I ran across a comment by an individual who proclaimed that the OF was unintelligible and they were completely lost. I suggested they sit down and compare both Mass forms side by side and they would see how closely aligned they are. The answer of silence was deafening.

      • I may actually have helped someone to move toward the extraordinary form by sitting for a while and explaining and stressing the similarities between that and the ordinary form. While I, too, have come to appreciate the extraordinary form and now prefer it in general, the similarities are as striking as the differences.

  11. Iam Not a Rad/Trad. Never have been. Topping that, I find Integralism personally repugnant.

    Still, Pope Francis’ papacy has given me pause and unending discomfort. Its fundamentals – discordant with received doctrine – exhibit a public preference for cultural and political Marxism. I detect no change. Staying with Francis is endangering my peace of mind, fogs my prayers, and unsettles my heart.

    Am in my seventh decade. Had already been a Marxists and, concurrently, a Crowleyan Occultist. Can scent the stench of both wherever they squat and burrow in, whomever they befriend. They spike the drinks they serve so the institutions and persons they squatted and charmed can be Shanghaied to foreign parts.

    Have no desire to be on board as that ship of fools heads for the port Marx and Aleister. Have no wish to disembark with the Church when it drops anchor at that port.

    In a generation or two the Church will pull anchor and set sail to whence it came – the great Apostolic Sea. But I won’t be around to board her. Will be long gone.

    Meanwhile, the years left to me will not be spent pub crawling the derelict port of Cultural Marxisnm the present papacy (with drunken sailor delight) has docked the Church.

    Did not need the Rad/Trad Integralists to alert me – or offer their harbor as a safer port.

    Am on my way out.

  12. Excerpt from a letter written in a different context:

    ¨…Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another.” I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this “biting and devouring” also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times….¨

  13. Thanks, Father S. for this very good article. We really do have to keep in mind who is really running the Catholic Church and what he promised. It will be okay. God is at work, he has not abandoned us, even if things go badly this fall. Pick up your weapon, the Rosary, and keep praying as Saint Padre Pio called it.

  14. Thank you for your commenting on this issue Father.

    Do we not lose something in attempting to have a serious conversation when we continue to use the labels that are created to marginalize or negate a group of people? What exactly is a “rad trad” anyway? This sounds like a tactic often used in mainstream media.

    You end with the plea “we need to make a plea to Our Lord “that the obedience of the flock may never fail the shepherds, nor the care of the shepherds be ever lacking to the flock.”

    One would have to live alone in the mountains to see how the care of the shepherds has been lacking for the flock in every way. You have closed churches denying Jesus Christ to the faithful for the first time in 2000 years, giving in to mandates of the state. Additionally, the faithful are rocked with every scandal under the sun as churches spend hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for lawsuits against predator priests, that were only covered up for years. We have priests, bishops, cardinals, and even the pope who continually make statements in the public form and endorse everything that is antithetical to our Catholic faith. If the clergy at all levels do not, as a whole, do not defend the Church or the faithful, what are we to do? How much abuse spiritually and physically are the faithful to endure before they speak out?

    Certainly, there are those who take their words too far, but perhaps if the clergy would do what the clergy have the past have done this could be mitigated? Where are the Blessed Sacrament processions, the call to pray the rosary, the calling-out and excommunication of those in the Church who do not correct their errors when they are addressed?

    You ask what are the clergy to do? What are the faithful to do when they see pagan rituals with pagan idols in the Vatican and in the house of God, endorsed and conducted by clergy at the top levels?

    Thank you for your reminder and admonishment to be charitable.

    It would be a source of refreshment to see more clergy being this passionate about actually defending the Church, as I have seen you do, rather than only focus on those being “mean”.

    Bishop Barron said it is up to the laity to be in the streets and defend the Church. What are the bishops to defend then?

    Archbishop Fulton Sheen left the laity this charge – “it is up to you to make sure your priests ask like priests and your bishops act like bishops”.

    Please as a whole, remember your first love Jesus Christ, and follow his admonishment to St. Peter to Feed his Sheep. Do not leave us to be ravaged by wolves inside the Church and out.

    • We all need to take to the streets!! Last week Pro-Life Wisconsin took our EUCHARISTIC LORD in procession — (2 Bishops) leading a couple thousand clerics and faithful — right up to the Capitol. The Police blocked the streets, and we are once again making Wisconsin God’s Country!!

    • Jeremy – thank you for your succinct and accurate comments and response. There has been a lot of commentary that does little to clarify or even address the fundamental issues which you so nicely summarized. Charitable thoughts and actions combined with prayers for ourselves and error in Brothers/Sisters in Christ are all needed. Thank you again,

  15. I’m seeing a lot of selective retelling of the Church history that has brought us to this point. We like to talk about prophets. The actual Biblical record is of prophets being God’s drill instructors, sent to correct corrupt religious practices and leaders. I have posted a comment on this subject in the article “Dethroning Christ? The Error at the Root of the Viganò Controversy (Part 2)” on this website. It is near the top of the comments.
    The article seems to paper over the woes that Christ leveled against the Scribes and the Pharisees. It was far from gentle. When I look at the clerical abuse scandal it is identical to the House of Eli. The worthless sons of Eli were adulterers, and treated God’s offerings with contempt. They also ignored the complaints of the people about their abuse. The clerical adultery is obvious. Many of these abusive clergy also felt free to help themselves to the Church’s money. The legal settlements also came from out of the Church’s money. The collection plate has been treated like a clerical slush fund. This is taking the offerings to God and treating them with contempt. It took public scandal and lawsuits to stir the Church into action. All consistent with the fall of the House of Eli.
    The priests have the sacrament of Holy Orders. When they abuse they bring their ontological change and their ordinations with them when they engage in sexual defilement. They cannot be compared to other offenders without cheapening the sacrament of Holy Orders.
    Many faithful Catholics find themselves stonewalled when addressing issues to the hierarchy. Where is the McCarrick report? How often do heterodox religious figures face the same level of ire that is meted out to the Rad-Trads? This suggests clerical cronyism.
    The pope has made comments as to his engaging in dialog and discussion with people. This would be news to the dubia cardinals. He also had priests working for Cardinal Müller fired without any explanation given. The dubia cardinals followed the Bible in how they submitted the dubia. In private first, only going public when there was no response from the pope.
    Is the conduct of the hierarchy any different than that of the kings and religious figures that drew the chastisement of the Biblical prophets? In New Testament times Christ, St. John the Baptist, and St. Stephen delivered powerful rebukes. Does the modern Church recognize the role of prophetic correction? Does it recognize the role of prophetic responsibility as stated in Ezekiel 3:17-21? How many voices in the Church are being consigned to the muddy cistern to keep the prophet Jeremiah company? In the book of Genesis it was much easier for Cain to kill Abel than to confront his own shortcomings and institute the reform that God was urging him to undertake. A humble Cain would have tried to learn from his brother Abel. In Christ’s woes Abel was counted among the ranks of the prophets.
    Does the Church have any recognizable supernatural dimension? Is there any recognition of our accountability before God? Do our vows and covenants mean anything? When Christ returns will how much supernatural faith will He find?

  16. Not so sure John Paul II and Benedict XVI did so well on their episcopal appointments. Theodore McCarrick was made a cardinal under JP2, after all. They both seemed to do a thing where they were trying for balance appointing some men who actively worked against their program and promoted them to the College of Cardinals and even more influential Sees. See: Cardinals Kasper, Martini, Marx and.. Jorge Bergoglio as a few examples, let alone the likes of Bransfield .

    There is definitely an acerbic quality to many traditionalist circles. It must be understood in the context that they were treated like pariahs for wanting to worship as their grandfathers did and lied to for decades saying the Council or Pope commanded that their high altars and altar rails be torn down or the abandonment of Latin and chant to be replaced by gaudy 1970s folk tunes. That any even modest attempt to solemnize the current liturgy and being happy with SOME vernacular but wanting a modest amount of Latin for at least the proper chants (Gloria, Agnus Dei, etc) are ostracized as retrograde, let alone cry against the abuses of routine use of “Extraordinary Ministers” or desire to receive our Eucharistic Lord kneeling and on the tongue, all in perfect accordance with the instructions of Redemptionis Sacramentum. Why should they not seek otherwise the whole nine yards in union with Rome and their bishop per Summorum Pontificum?

    Unfortunately for all his merits, Bp. Barron addresses none of the abuses right under his nose. Moreso, he apparently makes little to no effort to reach the far friendlier traditional FSSP community in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles invited by the Archbishop when other Auxiliary Bishops and the Archbishop himself have participated with Pontifical Vespers, traditional Confirmations and such. Sure, he’s got a different ‘pastoral region’ but has he tried? Instead, he appears to give the appearance of reinforcing the need for the fortress mentality of the more extreme elements. Behind the curtain, the reality in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is that the chancery and pastors have large remnants of the footprint of Cardinal Mahony, hostile to everything traditional (especially if one recalls Mother Angelica’s famous rant). Abp. Gomez himself is perfectly orthodox though he’s not a wave maker, let alone the sort to clamp down the heterodoxy of the LA REC, yet him and Barron seem to not only tolerate it, but endorse it with their participation. The Archdiocese is itself really just too large and needs to be split into at least 4 suffragan diocese.

    All that said, I fully expect Bp. Barron to head back to Chicago as coadjutor within 4 or 5 years as Cupich nears mandatory retirement age. He’s too popular and not at all controversial within the episcopal hierarchy to expect him to get sidelined like Fulton Sheen was (nor does he appear to have any enemies as powerful as Cardinal Spellman was).

    • Barron won’t return to Chicago as long as Cupich is there. The rumor is that the reason he’s an auxiliary in LA instead of Chicago is because Cupich wanted him gone

  17. I went “rad trad” because the post Vatican II church transformed our family who just two generations ago was very solidly Catholic, into a family of non believers. It’s why the pews are emptying. Less than ten percent of our very large clan practice the faith at all and more than half of them are of the cafeteria Catholic label. So, to sum up, thanks to all the liberal garbage that went unchecked by the highly praised (saintly) hierarchy of the Church, I now fear for the destination of the souls of nearly all our family, the souls who were led astray by those we call “shepherds”, because they simply trusted them. And it might have destroyed me too had I not been away at war when the liturgical destruction was taking place. On my return I questioned everything due to my disbelief of what I came back to,(Protestantism under a Catholic sign).

  18. Faith cannot accommodate; it is Faith. I remember in the 1970s the priest pounding the pulpit screaming, “Sins of the flesh!,” and his face was red. No one in the packed Sunday mass got up and left.

  19. I can’t believe you gave Bishop Barron an A+ being conservative and good sound teaching I defer you to go look at the tape with him and Dave Rubin a married homosexual where Bishop Barron says to Rubin I don’t want to fight homosexuality legislatively we should just Let It Go I adopt the Aquinas principle that’s an intrinsic evil.. God bless father

  20. Can someone please give me an example or two of these bad “radtrads”? Samton909 indicates Taylor Marshal and Cardinal Vigano are “radtrads”. Yet I am not aware of Vigano denying the validity of Vatican II (but I am very ignorant when it comes to knowing and practicing my faith). I looked up Taylor Marshal and he appears to be a member of parish run by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). Are the FSSP priests Not in communion with Rome? Has Taylor Marshal denied the validity of Vatican ? I don’t regularly go to Latin Mass but if I did would I be considered a “radtrad” By folks like bishop Barron or people ay the Catholic Reporter.

    • The Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) is in communion with Rome. They were founded after the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) consecrated bishops against the wishes of Pope John Paul II, thereby excommunicating themselves and becoming schismatic, due to their refusal to obey the Pope. The FSSP was designed for “refugees” of the SSPX (some priests and layfolk) who didn’t want to adhere to the schism created after the consecrations, yet still wanted a Latin Mass (which the SSPX celebrated). The FSSP have permission from Rome to celebrate the Latin Mass exclusively.

      Taylor Marshall has become increasingly sympathetic toward the views expressed by the SSPX, as has Vigano. The SSPX claims there are “two Romes,” and that the Catholic Church has somehow split. It creates confusion because it denies the indefectibility of the Church. I personally think it’s diabolical. They also think Vatican Council II can be ignored, or that it contained errors, or that the documents were deliberately vague. Again, more confusion.

      Don’t get sucked in by them.

      Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, i.e. the “Latin Mass,’ is a beautiful expression of the Mass, and perfectly fine to attend, provided it happens in a parish in communion with Rome.

  21. Here is a priest who actually teaches the Truth and makes the point that clarity is charity.

    Yet, his Bishop is giving in because the Truth is “mean”.

    https // www youtube com/watch?v=Ns4Y_P09CCY

  22. The very fact that Bishop Barron called a meeting of the “good guys” of Catholic journalism to discuss the “bad guys” shows how out of touch with reality the Bishop is.
    Do we live in a society that protects freedom of speech or not?
    After following the plummeting fortunes of the Catholic Church closely for the last 2 decades, one thing is clear to me- the overwhelming majority of the hierarchy in the English speaking world at least are living in a land of make believe. Desperately pretending that all is well as they close churches, schools, seminaries, convents and entire parishes all because of one basic reason. That reason is the faithful are voting with their feet in huge numbers and leaving the Catholic Church.
    What does the hierarchy propose in the face of this exodus? Basically more of the same – liturgies of unbelievable blandness and boredom. A welcome mat for every new destructive invention of the secular left and their acolytes, a weak silence about the number one moral issue that faces the Western World in particular – the murder by abortion of an ever growing proportion of conceptions in our blighted societies and still (can you believe it) a blind eye turned to the complicity of so many in the hierarchy to the scourge of sexual abuse by the clergy.
    Yes the tone of much of the traditional commentary isn’t at all nice. There is one very good reason for that. The hierarchy remain tone deaf so the cries become louder and more strident.
    By the way, all you bishops and priests, when will the Vatican release it’s long promised report about Mr McCarrick? My guess is they are afraid to do so while McCarrck remains alive (presuming he still is) or possibly they are afraid to do so while Archbishop Viganò remains at large, for fear of what further revelations he may make.

  23. Taylor Marshall has been thrown around here a lot in these comments, so I think it’s important to discuss him.

    I listed to Taylor a LOT and was a big fan of his, esp when his videos were shorter and more upbeat.

    However, the issue that seems to have broken him is the McCarrick situation.

    Taylor was a great teacher of the faith. His teachings were sound and he’s honestly a very good teacher. I loved taking classes from his New Saint Thomas Institute.

    But the McCarrick situation has really pulled a number on him.

    This links to to my issue with Barron. Marshall releases his Infiltration book, and instead trying to being him back into the fold, Barron (and others) disown him.

    Marshall has a legitimate question and disagreement about Balthazar. But instead of discussing it with Marshall (even if just privately) in an attempt to pull Marshall back, Barron PUBLICLY insults Marshall.

    Furthermore, someone with a Vatican IP address altered the Wikipedia page about Marshall with insults.

    These actions against Taylor Marshall have only cemented him into total distrust of most Bishops.

    If the McCarrick situation was handled better and if Bishops like Barron realized the true depth of damage the McCarrick situation has created, we wouldn’t be seeing this division. Taylor might never have felt the need to write his book, therefore he may never have looked into the sources that lead him closer to the SSPX.

    Now, we are all responsible for our actions (Marshall included) but the level of hatred that man has received since his Infiltration book is uncalled for. The bishops need to realize their failure in all this by keeping quiet about McCarrick & not supporting a public investigation.

    Finally, it’s really sad when Fr James Martin SJ is treated with love and respect when traditional laymen and priests are quickly removed while heretical priests are free to continue ministering. Finally, I hope people like Bishop Barron realize that every day heretical priests like James Martin are allowed to say whatever they want, the more orthodox Catholics will come to the conclusion that the bishops support heresy.

  24. The Catholic Church is Un-Changeable, for the Mass is the Catholic Church in hand with the Spirit of the Gospel. The Church is not suffering, the people are suffering of a scandal incited by people. The United States as a whole is morally, ethically, and definitely financially bankrupted, and many want to drag the church down with the government, making all a nation of wage, debt slaves.
    A repeat of Soddom and Gammorh, the Roman Empire, or the British under Cromwell in out-lawing of the Catholic Mass that lead to a fleeing of many to the US in seeking religious freedom, or escaping death.
    Today major issues are ignored, as the destruction of the Family, the foundation of a strong civilization. Destroyed by Unjust/forever wars on the poor, with a Trillion a year military budget, the Military Industrial complex. While the US imposes Genocide on Yemen to exterminate millions by starvation. As the US itself faces major food inflation, due to Unbridled capitalism, the destroying the family farms in the USA, as around the world.
    Where is the Catholic leadership in recognizing Unbridled Capitalism, Unjust War, and Genocide on the poor, as Wage and Debt slavery that now ravages the World?
    The real Scandal.

  25. God will Judge those that do wrong, eternal damnation, sins that no one can expect to be forgiven for. For doing evil to others, most directly children, teaches evil to others, the path straight to Hell. Yet suing the Catholic Church has came to be a profit mecca, though the same exact problem exists in all religions, always has. the US Catholic church is most under attack in the greed of many. And, many are falsely accused, a grave atrocity itself.
    And greed today in the USA exists in adoptions of “unwanted Children” with horrific prices, “fees” charged to Loving Parents who want to take children into their homes to raise, another Greed of a few issue.
    We in the USA are 5% of the Worlds population, Yet Twenty Five percent of the World prisoners, in Jails not of reform, but of profit.
    The orphanages, homes for Children with no place, no family, or out of control issues have been closed, with Politicians claiming great cost saving. A Crime against our most vulnerable, the homeless children in the USA.. Education in the USA has eliminated Reading, Writing, and Arithmatic as known, taught subjects, replaced by an internet that is driven by the devil, founded on ponography. The US spends a Trillion on war, murder a year, but the Federal gov. the least as a acclaimed rich nation on Education, a real scandal. For the greatest moral and ethical obligation of a Catholic is to educate themselves, and others. But not our federal government, but war, murder, hate, revenge, is.
    Please stop your attack on the Holy Catholic Church, Gods house. Address the real Scandals.

  26. If we want to get into a Scandal of the United States, Catholic Teachings, a focus of President Kennedy murder, and those deemed involved, or in defiance to him is alarming.
    For Kennedy was against war, murder, (Vietnam) and the US actions of over throw of Guatemala government, as Iran (over throw of the democratic government, instilled Sha (King) of Iran and Syria. Those that were agnostic, opposed Kennedy. After his execution, they came tobe central leaders in the US Catholic Church, with many following the same pattern.
    Today, the United States is waging Unjust wars on countries that it over threw the governments of, in the promoting of Unbridled Capitalism, that has bankrupted the USA, defiant to Catholic Teachings at every level. For as the wise man said, WAR is murder, war is a disease, and, also, bigotry is a disease, a disease of the United States.. How did the US Catholic Church come to promote, WAR, Murder? Who wanted Kennedy gone, is the answer. Thou Shall not Kill.
    We are to fear God, not the terror of man. A fact that continues to be proven every day, every minute.

  27. So, what is Bishop Barron doing to stand against the Worst Humanitarian Crisis ever, today, in all of World History, the United States Genocide (the single reason a Catholic can go off to war is to STOP, end Genocide? The USA commits, Genocide, on, Yemen, defiant to the Catholic faith…
    Does Bishop Barron stand against the wall? Leading to,, the Extermination of Women, Children, in Mexico? As Women, Children are slaughtered in Mexico, in the supply of the USA Drug Addition, that has destroyed an entire generation PLUS in the USA.

    Their is NO Debate, Bishop Barron stands for, NOTHING!

  28. I think that this article makes some good points about attitudes and progressive polemics from people like Taylor Marshall. Eventually people forget the good that the Catholic Church does. I haven’t seen an article recently of good works by a Catholic that didn’t involve criticism. Some of that seems to be simple humility, but I never heard of CRS or DSF until I started catechesis classes. That being said, there is a strong avoidance of dealing too strongly with abuses of all kinds. Few are willing to criticize even obvious liturgical and doctrinal abuses.
    While we can’t be Donatists and require Holiness, we also have to value and seek Holiness in ourselves and others. We can’t deem abuses and other sins as acceptable, normal, or correct, but we also can’t throw Bishops and Priests off of balconies and declare their Masses invalid.
    Hopefully this sentiment makes sense despite my lack of formation and confirmation.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Making sense of Catholic rage – On God's Payroll

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.